The Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools - Essay Example

The Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools The Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools Introduction Throughout the history of the United States America, few issues have sparked more public debate than religion. Institutionalized, or organized, religion is not the only controversial element to this topic. It seems that any reference made to religion in the past few decades have sparked both support and outrage. This ranges from prayer in public schools, to monuments of the Ten Commandments at county courthouses, and even to our very own Pledge of Allegiance. Interestingly enough, the pledge itself has undergone several revisions over the years and was absent any overt reference to religion until the latter half of the 20th century. It is that one phrase ‘Under God’, however, that has sparked tremendous controversy in recent years as members of society argue that their children should be forced to support the notion that American is a monotheistic country any longer. Out of this controversy has come the debate over whether or not the pledge should be compulsory throughout the American public school system. The aim of this short paper, then, is to analyze the arguments on both sides in order to shed light on this controversy that remains a part of public life throughout the country. Argument for Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools To understand why the issue of the Pledge of Allegiance is such a contentious topic to many people, it is perhaps best to understand the history behind it all. The initial pledge was written by Francis Bellamy quite a while ago and was designed specifically for schoolchildren to recite for a particular event. This event was the commemoration of the discovery of America exactly 400 years prior. This initial pledge was quite short and formed that basis for the first part of the pledge that we still recite today. It stated: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all. Many individuals felt that is was important that children understand what the flag represented and that they be reminded of the events leading up to the founding of America. One way to do that was to recite this pledge, where the very words themselves should serve to evoke feelings of pride (Seefeldt, 1989, p. 62). That history of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, then, continues to this day for roughly the same reason. What one will note about the early pledge, however, is that it did not specify which flag the reciter is referring to, nor is there any reference to religion. Throughout the early years especially, the religiosity present in America was on the rise. Many felt that the pledge should reflect the fact that America was founded on Biblical principles. The first change that occurred regarded the specificity of the flag. The words where altered to read “…to the flag of the United States of America…”. In 1942, the Pledge of Allegiance actually was entered into United States law, setting the stage for the official title to become ‘The Pledge of Allegiance’ back in 1945. By then, there was an entire set of policies and procedures put into place governing the display of the flag and its place in American Society. By this time, several wars had been fought and patriotism in America was at its highest level since the Revolutionary War. As a result, the flag evoked feelings of strong emotion by all Americans, and there was a near unanimous contention that the public should recite it at certain times and occasions. One of those occasions was in the public school classroom. A final change to the Pledge, ironically, involved religion. It was not until 1954 that the words ‘Under God’ were added after that phrase ‘One nation’ in the pledge. Most scholars agree that this is likely when the debate began, although there was not much discussion about the change at first. People mostly accepted and agreed with the changed. In explaining the rationale for this change in the first place, McCarthy (2005) wrote, “The amendment’s sponsors indicated that the purpose of the addition to the Pledge was to affirm the United States as a religious nation, distinguished from countries practicing atheistic communism” (p. 93). The change was actually reflected in the form of a federal law signed into effect by President Eisenhower. In doing so, he said, “In this way, we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most power resource in peace and war” (McCarthy, 2005, p. 93). In essence, it was decided about 60 years that the Pledge of Allegiance should reflect to all that America was a Christian nation and that all citizens agreed to that effect. At first, it appeared that the public would be in stark agreement with this idea. As the next section will argue, however, the feeling is not necessarily the same today. In the end, there are two parts to the argument supporting the idea that public school children should recite the pledge. The first is civic responsibility. Americans, just as every other country in the world, should feel proud of their heritage and country. This is instilled from childhood, so the simple act of reciting the pledge can further that cause. The second is to better understand where we have come from as a nation and to remember the sacrifices that have been made. The other aspects of the pledge, contained in the words, reflect that reality of who we are as a people. For those reason, the supporters of the pledge vow to keep reciting it in public places and on certain occasions, complete with a reflection of the religious nature of the nation reflected in the words that are said. Argument Against Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools As mentioned previously, the modern day argument against the reciting of the pledge in public school’s is a relatively new one. In the early days of the pledge, there was little disagreement with the concept, and children were free to recite the words each morning upon the beginning of the school day. There have been recent challenges to the policy requiring the Pledge be recited in all public schools throughout the nation. Interestingly enough, most of the controversy, and challenges, that have been lodged in both American society and in the courtroom have revolved not around the compulsory nature of the act itself, but because of the few words that were added back in the 1950s, ‘Under God’. The opponents of this new law argue that children should not feel compelled to state anything with reference to religion. This argument stems from the long standing concept in American society that religion and matters of the state are to remain separate. The opponents of this measurement, and the basis for the controversy, contend that by making kids recite ‘Under God’, this basic premise is violated. Back in 1992, challenges to mandatory recitation of the Pledge made it all the way to the Federal Appellate Court. This was an argument stemming from the state of Illinois and their requirement for Pledge recitation by all children enrolled in the public school system. The objection was of a religious nature, and the argument was that the state should not force children into any religious activity of any sort. In the end, however, “The court held that as long as students can decline to participate in the Pledge, the state law presents no infringement on individuals’ constitutional right to refrain from such an observance” (Copulsky, 2007, p. 122). In essence, the Pledge should continue in public schools on the basis of this argument. As of today, there are 35 states that require the Pledge of Allegiance to be said in public schools. The controversy, however, has not gone away with recent court decisions. The debate lingers on because many people argue that children will still feel compelled to recite the pledge, even if they do not believe with its religious nature, because of peer pressure. Even those that do opt to sit out of reciting the pledge may feel ostracized, and even teased, as a result of that action. Even these arguments, however, have been tossed out by the courts. In a case in the state of Virginia, for example, the courts ruled that “Students were [not] psychologically coerced into accepting religious views sponsored by the school or that they were being punished by having to listen to classmates recite the Pledge” (Copulsky, 2007, p. 123). So, the debate continues. Parents from California to New York have weighed in recently to voice their displeasure with the reality that their children are either forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance, or that they are alienated as a result of refusing to do so. They argue that prayer in school has been abolished, religious classes are not acceptable, and any form of religious references in the public school classroom are largely against policy nationwide. As a result, the controversy is still with us today because of that one phrase in the pledge that seems to bring religion back to the forefront of the discussion. At issue with this controversy, as well, is the notion of the state mandating with a child should and should not do. Obviously, there are many situations where children are expected to follow certain societal norms and traditions, irrespective of what their parents might believe. An example of this would be compulsory school attendance. The Pledge, however, while being recited in public schools in 35 states, is not necessary compulsory any longer. The debate lingers on, however, because many adults argue that children should not have decisions like this made for them. Sure, the parent can tell the teacher that their student should not recite the prayer. They are then subject to other reciting the pledge, however, so it is roughly the same idea to begin with. Recently many have stated the example of prayer at graduation. Many argue that prayer should be allowed and that those who object should simply be excused from that part of the ceremony. That has consistently been struck down by the courts and school district’s nationwide, however, because every student should have the right attend his or her graduation ceremony from start to finish. Many on this side of the debate, then, make the similar argument that children should be able to attend and participate in every activity in their classroom and should not have to make the tough decision to sit anything out because of a religious objection (Zirkel, 2006, p. 51). It is an argument that has not yet been won, but is one that also warrants attention because the rights of the child are at stake. The controversy will likely remain. Conclusion Controversy is one of the hallmarks of a free and Democratic society. America has long prided itself on allowing its citizens to disagree, even with that the disagreement is with the government itself. The reality is that The Pledge of Allegiance has been a hallmark of American society for decades. Perhaps no other words are as well known and ingrained in the hearts and mind of American than the pledge, save for possibly the National Anthem. This debate, however, is not about the pledge itself. Rather, it is about making something compulsory for all children to say, particularly when those words have religious overtones. As have been discussed here, there are many in America who believe it is a patriotic duty to expect citizens to be proud of their country and express that through the spoken word. There are others, however, that feel such expressions should be voluntary. Children, they argue, should not have that decision thrust upon them. Both arguments, as with most debate, have solid and prudent concerns that are raised. The outcome to this point, however, is the Pledge of Allegiance remains in the public school system throughout the United States of America and will likely remain so for years to come. References Copulsky, J. (2007). The pledge of allegiance and the meanings and limits of civil religion. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 75(1), 121-149. McCarthy, M. (2005). Controversy continues over the pledge of allegiance: Legal update. Educational Horizons, 83(2), 92. Seefeldt, C. (1989). The pledge of allegiance in public schools. Education Digest, 55(1), 62. Zirkel, P. (2006). Toying with God? Journal of Law and Education, 35(1), 51. Read More